Memory Alpha:Restoration discussions/Lessons Learned from Star Trek
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to restore " ". *If you are suggesting a page for restoration, add your initial rationale to the section "Restoration rationale". *If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion". *If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the before editing this page. Restoration rationale This page was created to show another book that was contributed to the universe of Star Trek, and to let fans know what's out there. The page was deleted due to "re-uploading a deleted file without addressing any of the issues with it, mainly the lack of a description, template, and category as described in the file use policy." This was a simple mistake due to misunderstanding the policy. I intend to rectify any issues and be compliant with the site policy. (Nick1701E (talk) 18:35, August 16, 2018) Discussion You forgot to mention that you are the author of the ebook at issue(at least you seem to be, as your username contains Nick and the author of the book is named Nicholas). The text that you wrote was nothing but an advertisement for it. The website you list as a publisher publishes pretty much anything submitted to it. This is not the forum to publicize your book or your personal analysis of Star Trek- no matter how fascinating it might be. 31dot (talk) 19:16, August 16, 2018 (UTC) :So is it more akin to Fan fiction...in a sense, fan non-fiction, than an unauthorized publication? --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, August 16, 2018 (UTC) Yes. This is someone self-publishing their own analysis of Star Trek. I'm sure it is insightful, but it has no place here- expecially if the purpose is to advertise this. 31dot (talk) 20:13, August 16, 2018 (UTC) ::Keep.@31dot The purpose of this site is to discuss both canon and non-canon topics in the Star Trek universe. I cannot find in the policies where it states that an author cannot post his contribution to Memory Alpha. If I have violated policy, please show me, and I will happily make the corrections. The page for "Lessons Learned from Star Trek" is merely to show fans what is out there, not to advertise. Nick1701E (talk • ) "Showing fans what is out there" is advertising. As for policy, see MA:NOT, specifically number 4. 31dot (talk) 20:04, August 16, 2018 (UTC) ::@31dot According to your logic. All novelsreferenced on this site should be removed as well. If this site only allows authors that have been officially licensed by the franchise , then it should be stated in the policy in simple English. Nick1701E (talk • ) BTW I'm not sure why you are using nowiki tags in your posts, but they prevent your signature from displaying properly. Novels are officially licensed products. We do cover unauthorized publications, such as The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers, but that's not what your book is- and if it were, you shouldn't be the one to write the article about it. 31dot (talk) 21:02, August 16, 2018 (UTC) :::I'm actually inclined to agree with the author here. We don't have a policy on this beyond the part of the that states fan fiction and fan reference works of any kind are invalid resources. We then list the unofficial episode guide in the materials about a production section under any authorized non-fiction reference works, when it clearly was not. Unofficial publications has much to say on the subject, and the talk page includes the original VfD discussion that allowed such works, but that didn't evolve into a policy for this, or change the policy wording. The category for these used the term we said not to use as it's title, and the talk page flat out says that it's for "books that were self-published" as to what it should cover. We also link to , and similar sites, a lot, but according to policy, we shouldn't. The old canon policy archive only seems to briefly come close to addressing this, as far as I know, so we need to find a way to cover this in policy better than we do. Right now, I'm inclined to agree that this should stay deleted per policy, but be restored per practice, and that's not a good place for us to be. - 08:18, September 29, 2018 (UTC) The author admits that he posted it here to advertise their publication, which I assume since it is self-published is probably not that widely available. It's no different than Hallmark posting here to advertise their ornaments, or EagleMoss advertising their model subscriptions. If this were Wikipedia, their contribution would not be permitted as a conflict of interest. If someone else wants to write about this publication, I would find that less problematic. I'm also very concerned that any fan who wants to draw attention to their theories on or analysis of Star Trek could simply write them down and submit them to a publisher online to get them published and then get an article on Memory Alpha. 31dot (talk) 08:57, September 29, 2018 (UTC) :::I'm don't think anyone should be able to do that either, but I'm sure I've said before that pages which are MA:NOT violations actually are perfectly fine external links, like some of the EAS links, and that is pretty much the same as self publishing stuff, so we need some sort of policy or clarification of policy here. This book does have an ISBN, so it's about as "official" a "book" as a book gets, even if it isn't printed anywhere. I'm not sure if limiting books to printed copies only would be a good idea, since we have licensed books without physical copies. :::I do agree that the "current" text of the article wouldn't do if this was restored, since it was written by the author as more or less an ad, but it's not a copyright violation, so it would simply have to be reworked to something more encyclopedic instead of remaining deleted. We do allow subjects to edit their own articles and contribute to topics, so long as they don't violate MA:NOT. - 09:25, September 29, 2018 (UTC) I would be willing to give the author another shot if they can write without advertising, while we develop a policy in this area. 31dot (talk) 09:58, September 29, 2018 (UTC) :::I think we need a policy in this area before resolving this restoration. Clearly we intend to have some sort of criteria or that things would need to be better than to be included, so we should decided that before restoring this, or deleting a bunch of other stuff. - 01:42, October 1, 2018 (UTC) Admin resolution *'Restored' per changes at MA:RESOURCE. - 21:22, October 1, 2019 (UTC)